What Is the Economic Analysis of Crime and Punishment?

Economic analysis of crime and punishment examines criminal behavior through the lens of rational choice theory, where individuals weigh the expected benefits of criminal activity against the expected costs of punishment, detection probability, and opportunity costs of legitimate alternatives. This framework, pioneered by economist Gary Becker in 1968, treats crime as an economic decision where offenders respond to incentives, costs, and benefits just as they would in legal markets. The economic approach suggests that crime can be reduced by increasing the certainty and severity of punishment, improving legitimate employment opportunities, or raising the opportunity costs of criminal behavior. This analytical framework has fundamentally transformed criminology, criminal justice policy, and our understanding of how legal sanctions influence human behavior (Becker, 1968).

Foundations of Economic Crime Theory

What Are the Core Principles of Economic Crime Analysis?

The economic analysis of crime rests on several fundamental principles that distinguish it from traditional criminological approaches. First, it assumes that potential offenders are rational actors who make calculated decisions based on available information about risks and rewards. Second, it recognizes that individuals respond to incentives, meaning that changes in the probability or severity of punishment, legitimate income opportunities, or social costs will systematically affect criminal behavior. Third, economic analysis acknowledges that crime imposes costs on victims, communities, and society beyond the direct transfer of property or harm inflicted. Fourth, it emphasizes that criminal justice resources are scarce and must be allocated efficiently to maximize social welfare and crime deterrence (Ehrlich, 1973).

These principles generate testable predictions about criminal behavior that differ substantially from sociological or psychological theories of crime. Economic theory predicts that crime rates should respond to changes in labor market conditions, with unemployment increasing property crimes but potentially reducing crimes requiring time investments. It suggests that certainty of punishment deters crime more effectively than severity because rational actors discount uncertain future consequences more heavily than certain ones. The economic framework also predicts that individuals will specialize in crimes where they have comparative advantages, that criminal organizations will emerge when economies of scale exist, and that criminals will substitute between different offenses when relative returns change. Empirical research has validated many of these predictions, demonstrating that economic incentives significantly influence criminal decision-making even when psychological and social factors also matter (Levitt & Miles, 2007).

How Does Rational Choice Theory Explain Criminal Behavior?

Rational choice theory explains criminal behavior as the outcome of individuals comparing expected utility from crime against expected utility from legal alternatives and choosing the option that maximizes their welfare. The expected utility of crime equals the potential gain from successful criminal activity multiplied by the probability of success, minus the expected punishment cost multiplied by the probability of detection and conviction. This calculation incorporates the severity of legal sanctions, likelihood of apprehension, speed of justice system processing, and individual risk preferences. When expected benefits exceed expected costs, rational actors choose to commit crimes. Importantly, this framework does not require perfect information or purely monetary calculations; individuals may value non-monetary benefits like excitement or status and may systematically misperceive probabilities based on limited information or cognitive biases (Cornish & Clarke, 1986).

The rational choice model generates important insights about crime prevention and punishment effectiveness. It suggests that increasing detection probability deters crime more cost-effectively than increasing punishment severity because higher certainty affects all potential offenders while severe punishments only matter to those caught. The model also explains why individuals commit crimes despite harsh penalties by recognizing that very low detection probabilities can offset even severe sanctions. Additionally, rational choice theory illuminates why crime varies across situations and times; individuals respond to immediate opportunities and constraints rather than fixed criminal propensities. This situational perspective has generated effective crime prevention strategies such as target hardening, access control, and surveillance that increase the perceived costs or reduce the perceived benefits of specific criminal opportunities. Critics argue that the rational choice model oversimplifies human behavior and ignores emotional, social, and developmental factors, but even bounded rationality models that incorporate psychological constraints retain the core insight that individuals respond systematically to incentives (Nagin, 2013).

Costs and Benefits of Criminal Activity

What Are the Economic Costs of Crime to Society?

The economic costs of crime to society encompass direct losses to victims, criminal justice system expenditures, private security costs, and broader social impacts on community well-being and economic development. Direct costs include property stolen or damaged, medical expenses for injury victims, lost productivity from victimization trauma, and premature mortality from violent crimes. The criminal justice system imposes substantial costs through police operations, court proceedings, correctional facilities, and probation supervision. Private entities spend billions annually on security systems, guards, insurance, and defensive measures that represent deadweight losses producing no value beyond crime prevention. Broader social costs include reduced property values in high-crime neighborhoods, diminished business investment, social disintegration, and psychological trauma affecting entire communities (Cohen & Piquero, 2009).

Empirical estimates of total crime costs in the United States range from $690 billion to over $3.4 trillion annually, depending on methodology and included components. Violent crimes impose particularly high costs per incident, with murder costing society approximately $9.4 million per case when including victim suffering, lost productivity, criminal justice expenses, and broader impacts. Property crimes like burglary and motor vehicle theft generate lower per-incident costs but occur much more frequently, producing substantial aggregate costs. Intangible costs such as pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life represent the largest cost components but are most difficult to measure accurately. Economic analysis helps prioritize crime prevention investments by identifying which crimes impose the greatest social costs and which interventions deliver the highest returns. Cost-benefit analysis of criminal justice programs reveals that many prevention initiatives, particularly early childhood interventions and evidence-based treatment programs, generate social benefits exceeding their costs by substantial margins (McCollister et al., 2010).

What Are the Individual Benefits and Costs of Committing Crime?

From an individual offender’s perspective, the benefits of crime include financial gains from theft or fraud, satisfaction of immediate desires, social status within certain peer groups, excitement or thrill-seeking gratification, and resolution of conflicts through violence. Economic crimes like burglary, robbery, and drug dealing offer monetary returns that may exceed legitimate income opportunities available to individuals with limited education or employment prospects. The average burglary yields approximately $2,000 in stolen property, though offenders typically receive only a fraction of retail value when selling stolen goods. Drug dealing can generate substantial income for successful operators, though most street-level dealers earn below minimum wage when accounting for time invested and risks incurred. Non-economic crimes provide psychological or social benefits that offenders value despite the lack of monetary gain, including revenge satisfaction, peer approval, or dominance assertion (Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000).

The individual costs of crime include the probability-weighted punishment if caught, immediate risks during criminal activity, opportunity costs of time and effort, damage to legitimate employment prospects from criminal records, social stigma, and psychological consequences of violating norms. Punishment costs encompass incarceration duration, fines, probation restrictions, and collateral consequences affecting housing, employment, education, and civil rights. Immediate risks include injury or death during crimes, especially violent offenses or those involving armed victims or police intervention. Opportunity costs represent foregone legitimate income and human capital accumulation that would increase future earning potential. Criminal records create lasting employment barriers, with studies showing that individuals with felony convictions earn 10% to 40% less over their lifetimes than similar individuals without records. Risk-averse individuals weight potential costs more heavily than risk-seeking individuals, explaining variation in criminal participation across the population even when expected values are similar (Western, 2006).

Deterrence Theory and Punishment Effectiveness

How Does Punishment Certainty Affect Crime Rates?

Punishment certainty, measured as the probability of detection, arrest, conviction, and sanction, exerts a powerful deterrent effect on crime rates that typically exceeds the impact of punishment severity. Economic theory predicts this relationship because rational actors discount uncertain future punishments more heavily than certain immediate consequences. Empirical research consistently demonstrates that increasing arrest rates, clearance rates, or conviction probabilities reduces crime more cost-effectively than enhancing sentence lengths. A 10% increase in arrest probability may reduce crime by 3% to 5%, while a comparable increase in sentence length reduces crime by only 1% to 2%. This differential effectiveness reflects both the greater salience of certain punishment and the reality that most potential offenders face very low detection risks for many crimes, making even severe penalties weak deterrents when apprehension probability remains minimal (Durlauf & Nagin, 2011).

The certainty-severity relationship has profound implications for criminal justice policy and resource allocation. Jurisdictions can achieve greater crime reduction by investing in investigation quality, forensic capabilities, and patrol strategies that increase detection probability rather than simply lengthening prison sentences for convicted offenders. Swift punishment also enhances deterrence by strengthening the psychological connection between criminal behavior and consequences. Delays between offense and punishment weaken deterrent effects as individuals discount future costs and as the sanction loses salience. However, increasing certainty faces practical limits because detection probability for many crimes cannot easily be raised above current levels without massive resource investments. Police cannot monitor all locations constantly, and many offenders take precautions to avoid detection. Nevertheless, even modest certainty increases achieved through evidence-based policing strategies such as hot-spot interventions, focused deterrence programs, and procedural justice approaches can generate meaningful crime reductions (Nagin, 2013).

What Is the Optimal Severity of Criminal Punishment?

The optimal severity of criminal punishment balances deterrent effectiveness, incapacitation benefits, costs of sanction administration, and negative consequences of excessive punishment. Economic analysis suggests that punishment severity should increase with crime seriousness to maintain appropriate incentive gradients that discourage offenders from committing more harmful crimes. If robbery and murder carried identical penalties, offenders would face no additional cost for escalating from robbery to murder, potentially increasing homicide rates. Optimal penalties should also reflect detection probability, with harder-to-detect crimes warranting more severe sanctions to maintain equivalent expected punishment across crime types. However, extremely harsh punishments provide limited additional deterrence beyond moderate sanctions because potential offenders either lack knowledge of exact penalties or discount distant, uncertain consequences heavily (Polinsky & Shavell, 2007).

Empirical evidence suggests that many contemporary punishments, particularly lengthy incarceration sentences, exceed optimal levels from an economic efficiency perspective. Incarceration imposes substantial direct costs averaging $35,000 to $75,000 per prisoner annually, plus indirect costs from prisoner re-entry difficulties, family disruption, and community destabilization. The marginal deterrent benefit of additional prison time declines rapidly after initial years, while incapacitation benefits also diminish because criminal activity declines sharply with age. Studies indicate that sentence lengths could be reduced by 20% to 50% for many offenses without significant crime increases, generating substantial cost savings that could fund more effective prevention programs. Optimal punishment strategies also recognize that non-custodial sanctions such as intensive probation, electronic monitoring, and community service can achieve similar deterrence at lower cost for many offenders. However, very serious violent offenses may warrant lengthy incarceration primarily for incapacitation and retributive justice rather than marginal deterrence (Durlauf & Nagin, 2011).

Labor Markets and Criminal Opportunity Costs

How Do Employment Opportunities Affect Crime Rates?

Employment opportunities affect crime rates by altering the opportunity costs of criminal activity and providing legitimate income alternatives that reduce the relative attractiveness of illegal earnings. Economic theory predicts that improved labor market conditions should reduce property crimes and economically-motivated offenses by increasing the wages foregone when individuals invest time in criminal activity or face arrest risks that jeopardize employment. Empirical studies generally confirm this relationship, showing that increases in unemployment rates correspond with modest increases in property crime rates, though effects vary by crime type, demographic group, and regional characteristics. Youth unemployment particularly influences crime because young males face both limited legitimate opportunities and low earnings potential, making criminal income relatively attractive. Manufacturing job losses have been linked to increased property crime and drug offenses in affected communities as displaced workers with limited alternative skills turn to illegal income sources (Raphael & Winter-Ebmer, 2001).

The employment-crime relationship is more complex for violent offenses, which appear less responsive to labor market fluctuations than property crimes. Some research suggests that unemployment may reduce certain violent crimes by keeping potential offenders and victims at home rather than in public spaces where confrontations occur. Additionally, legitimate employment provides more than income; it structures time, creates social bonds, builds human capital, and confers social status that strengthens conventional ties and raises informal social control. Job quality matters significantly, with stable, well-paying employment reducing crime more effectively than unstable, low-wage work that provides limited financial benefits or personal investment. Policies that improve employment access for disadvantaged populations, including ban-the-box initiatives, workforce development programs, and apprenticeships, can reduce crime by raising opportunity costs and facilitating desistance from criminal careers. However, employment effects show diminishing returns as many persistent offenders face multiple barriers beyond joblessness, including substance abuse, mental health issues, and antisocial attitudes (Bushway & Reuter, 2011).

What Role Does Education Play in Crime Prevention?

Education plays a critical role in crime prevention by increasing legitimate earning potential, developing cognitive skills and self-control, transmitting pro-social values, and creating social bonds that raise the costs of criminal behavior. Economic analysis suggests that educational attainment increases the opportunity costs of crime through higher foregone wages and greater job loss risks from criminal records. Individuals with more education can earn substantially more in legal labor markets, making criminal income relatively less attractive. High school dropouts face annual earnings averaging $25,000 to $30,000 compared to $40,000 to $50,000 for high school graduates and $70,000+ for college graduates, creating powerful incentives to avoid criminal records that impair employment. Additionally, education develops cognitive abilities such as future orientation, impulse control, and problem-solving that help individuals resist immediate criminal temptations in favor of long-term legitimate success (Lochner & Moretti, 2004).

Empirical research demonstrates that educational attainment significantly reduces criminal behavior, with each additional year of schooling decreasing arrest probability by 5% to 10% for property crimes and 3% to 7% for violent crimes. High school graduation reduces the likelihood of incarceration by approximately 20% to 30% even after controlling for family background and individual characteristics. The crime reduction benefits of education generate substantial social returns beyond private benefits to students, as one additional year of average schooling in a community reduces both victimization costs and criminal justice expenditures. Compulsory schooling laws that increase educational attainment produce measurable crime reductions, with studies estimating that each additional year of required schooling reduces arrest rates by 10% to 20%. Educational interventions targeting at-risk youth through early childhood programs, alternative schools, and dropout prevention show particularly strong crime prevention effects. These findings suggest that educational investments constitute cost-effective crime prevention strategies that generate broad social benefits extending far beyond direct crime reduction (Hjalmarsson et al., 2015).

Incarceration Economics and Mass Imprisonment

What Are the Economic Costs and Benefits of Incarceration?

The economic costs of incarceration include direct correctional expenditures, prisoner opportunity costs, family and community impacts, and re-entry challenges that perpetuate criminal behavior. Direct costs in the United States exceed $80 billion annually for correctional facilities, with per-prisoner costs ranging from $35,000 in low-cost states to over $75,000 in high-cost jurisdictions. These figures underestimate true costs by excluding prison construction capital expenses, retiree pensions, healthcare costs for aging prisoners, and opportunity costs of government resources diverted from alternative uses. Prisoners forego legitimate earnings averaging $15,000 to $25,000 annually, representing lost economic production totaling billions collectively. Families of incarcerated individuals experience income loss, housing instability, and psychological trauma, while children of prisoners face developmental challenges and increased criminality risks. Communities with high incarceration rates suffer from weakened social bonds, political disenfranchisement, and economic marginalization (Pettit & Western, 2004).

The benefits of incarceration include crime prevention through incapacitation, deterrence effects on potential offenders, and retributive justice for victims and communities. Incapacitation benefits arise because imprisoned offenders cannot victimize the public during confinement periods. Research estimates that the average prisoner would commit 5 to 15 crimes annually if free, depending on offense type and criminal career stage. However, marginal incapacitation benefits decline substantially with longer sentences because criminal activity diminishes sharply with age, making long sentences for older offenders economically inefficient. Deterrence benefits from incarceration remain uncertain and controversial, with some studies finding modest deterrent effects while others detect none. The economically optimal incarceration rate balances these benefits against substantial costs, and most analyses conclude that current U.S. imprisonment levels substantially exceed optimal levels, particularly for non-violent offenders and older prisoners with low recidivism risks. Cost-benefit analyses suggest that incarceration should be reserved primarily for violent offenders and high-rate property criminals, while alternative sanctions serve most other offenders more cost-effectively (Donohue, 2009).

How Does Mass Incarceration Affect Economic Outcomes?

Mass incarceration affects economic outcomes through multiple channels including reduced labor force participation, depressed earnings for formerly incarcerated individuals, concentrated disadvantage in high-incarceration communities, and intergenerational poverty transmission. The United States incarcerates approximately 2 million people currently, with an additional 4.5 million under community supervision. This represents a five-fold increase since 1973, creating an unprecedented social experiment with profound economic consequences. Incarceration removes primarily working-age males from communities, reducing household income, increasing single-parent families, and diminishing marriage market prospects for women in affected communities. Former prisoners face severe employment barriers, with incarceration reducing employment probability by 25% to 40% and decreasing earnings by 10% to 40% even for those who find work. These individual effects aggregate into substantial community-level economic impacts in neighborhoods with concentrated incarceration (Western & Pettit, 2010).

High incarceration rates generate negative externalities that extend beyond individual former prisoners to affect entire communities and social networks. Mass incarceration weakens community institutions, reduces political participation through felon disenfranchisement, and normalizes criminal justice involvement in ways that may reduce stigma and thus deterrence. Children of incarcerated parents experience educational difficulties, behavioral problems, and elevated criminality risks that perpetuate cycles of disadvantage. The economic costs of mass incarceration fall disproportionately on African American and Hispanic communities, where incarceration rates reach levels that fundamentally alter social structure and economic opportunity. Some researchers estimate that mass incarceration explains 10% to 20% of racial wealth gaps and 20% to 30% of racial employment gaps among males. These findings suggest that incarceration policy constitutes a major economic policy with distributional consequences requiring serious consideration in addition to crime control effectiveness. Reducing incarceration rates through sentencing reform, alternatives to incarceration, and reentry support could generate significant economic benefits while maintaining public safety (Clear, 2007).

Crime Prevention and Alternative Approaches

What Is the Cost-Effectiveness of Crime Prevention Programs?

Crime prevention programs vary widely in cost-effectiveness, with some early intervention and evidence-based programs generating social benefits exceeding costs by ratios of 5:1 to 10:1, while other approaches show minimal effectiveness or even counterproductive effects. The most cost-effective crime prevention strategies include early childhood interventions such as nurse home visiting programs, high-quality preschool education, parent training programs, and developmental support for at-risk families. The Perry Preschool Program generated an estimated $7 to $12 in social benefits per dollar invested through reduced crime, increased educational attainment, and higher earnings. Nurse-Family Partnership home visiting programs produce benefit-cost ratios of approximately 3:1 to 5:1 through crime reduction and other positive outcomes. These programs succeed by addressing developmental risk factors during critical early childhood periods when interventions achieve maximum impact (Aos et al., 2011).

School-based prevention programs, cognitive-behavioral therapy, functional family therapy, and multisystemic therapy for serious juvenile offenders also demonstrate strong cost-effectiveness with benefit-cost ratios of 2:1 to 8:1 depending on program quality and target population. Hot-spot policing strategies that concentrate enforcement resources in high-crime locations generate substantial crime reductions at modest cost. Drug courts and mental health courts that divert offenders to treatment rather than incarceration show positive cost-effectiveness by reducing recidivism and correctional costs. In contrast, many popular crime prevention approaches including Scared Straight programs, boot camps, and Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) show minimal effectiveness or even increase criminal behavior. The economic lesson is clear: jurisdictions should prioritize evidence-based prevention programs with demonstrated cost-effectiveness over politically popular but empirically ineffective approaches. Shifting resources from ineffective programs and marginal incarceration toward proven prevention could substantially reduce both crime and criminal justice costs (Welsh et al., 2012).

How Do Restorative Justice Approaches Compare Economically?

Restorative justice approaches that emphasize victim-offender dialogue, accountability, and community reintegration offer economically attractive alternatives to traditional retributive justice for many offenses. These programs typically cost $200 to $2,000 per case compared to $5,000 to $50,000 for traditional prosecution and incarceration, generating substantial direct cost savings. Beyond immediate cost differences, restorative justice programs demonstrate effectiveness in reducing recidivism, increasing victim satisfaction, and promoting offender accountability. Meta-analyses indicate that restorative justice reduces reoffending by 5% to 20% compared to traditional justice processing, with particularly strong effects for violent crimes and juvenile offenders. Reduced recidivism generates long-term cost savings through avoided future crimes, criminal justice processing, and incarceration (Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Restorative justice provides additional benefits not easily quantified economically but valuable nonetheless, including victim healing, offender reintegration, and community cohesion. Victims participating in restorative justice conferences report higher satisfaction than traditional court process participants, experience reduced trauma symptoms, and achieve meaningful closure. Offenders confronting victims directly face psychological accountability that may exceed formal punishment’s deterrent effect. Communities benefit from reduced social disruption, maintained family units, and constructive problem-solving rather than exclusionary punishment. Economic analysis suggests that restorative justice represents optimal policy for many non-violent offenses, juvenile offenses, and situations where offender accountability and victim restoration are important goals. However, restorative justice remains inappropriate for cases involving power imbalances, uncooperative parties, or offenders presenting high public safety risks. The optimal criminal justice system likely incorporates restorative approaches for appropriate cases while maintaining traditional prosecution for serious offenses requiring incapacitation or strong deterrence (Latimer et al., 2005).

Conclusion

The economic analysis of crime and punishment provides powerful insights into criminal behavior, effective deterrence, and efficient criminal justice policy. By examining crime through the lens of rational choice, costs and benefits, and incentive structures, economic analysis reveals that individuals respond systematically to changes in punishment certainty, legitimate opportunities, and opportunity costs. The evidence demonstrates that punishment certainty deters crime more effectively than severity, that employment and education significantly reduce criminal behavior by raising opportunity costs, and that many prevention programs generate social benefits far exceeding incarceration costs. Current criminal justice systems in many jurisdictions allocate excessive resources toward imprisonment relative to more cost-effective alternatives including prevention programs, alternative sanctions, and restorative justice approaches.

Future criminal justice policy should incorporate economic insights to maximize crime reduction per dollar spent while promoting social welfare and equity. This requires shifting resources from marginal incarceration toward evidence-based prevention, increasing punishment certainty through strategic policing, investing in education and employment programs that raise criminal opportunity costs, and implementing cost-effective alternatives to incarceration for appropriate offenders. Economic analysis cannot resolve all criminal justice questions, particularly those involving values such as retribution, justice, and human dignity. However, it provides essential tools for evaluating policy effectiveness, comparing alternative approaches, and allocating scarce resources efficiently. As societies continue grappling with crime and punishment challenges, economic analysis offers indispensable guidance for evidence-based policy that protects public safety while promoting human flourishing.

References

Aos, S., Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Klima, T., Miller, M., Anderson, L., Mayfield, J., & Burley, M. (2011). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.

Bushway, S. D., & Reuter, P. (2011). Labor markets and crime. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 183-209). Oxford University Press.

Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.

Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 25-49.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag.

Donohue, J. J. (2009). Assessing the relative benefits of incarceration: Overall changes and the benefits on the margin. In S. Raphael & M. A. Stoll (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 269-341). Russell Sage Foundation.

Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced? Criminology & Public Policy, 10(1), 13-54.

Ehrlich, I. (1973). Participation in illegitimate activities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 521-565.

Hjalmarsson, R., Holmlund, H., & Lindquist, M. J. (2015). The effect of education on criminal convictions and incarceration: Causal evidence from micro-data. Economic Journal, 125(587), 1290-1326.

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.

Levitt, S. D., & Miles, T. J. (2007). Empirical study of criminal punishment. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of law and economics (Vol. 1, pp. 455-495). Elsevier.

Levitt, S. D., & Venkatesh, S. A. (2000). An economic analysis of a drug-selling gang’s finances. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 755-789.

Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review, 94(1), 155-189.

McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108(1-2), 98-109.

Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199-263.

Pettit, B., & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 151-169.

Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (2007). The theory of public enforcement of law. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of law and economics (Vol. 1, pp. 403-454). Elsevier.

Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 259-283.

Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.

Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Gowar, B. R. (2012). Benefit-cost analysis of crime prevention programs. Crime and Justice, 41(1), 447-516.

Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.

Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8-19.